Topic: Just got back from attending my first (and possibly last) mass...

[akimori makoto]

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

[ialmisry]

And, just because the OP was wrong about reverence when *he* was a Protestant....means nothing. Nothing in relation to what a Catholic, or for that matter, an Orthodox or a Jew, or whatever, might or might not experience in their own tradition.  The Catholic N.O. Mass may have been "far, far from being fulfilling in terms of worship" for *him*, but how dare he speak for millions and millions of other people??  Especially based on a single experience!  Now, that really *is* arrogance!

Then so be it, I'm arrogant.

We have Saints who call prayer of the mind "basic" and the lowest level of prayer. Does that mean they are arrogant and shouldn't be speaking on behalf of the millions of us who participate in such prayer and haven't made it to higher levels? Certainly not.

Where can I purchase your icon?

There you go throwing around a personal insult...

Hey, you are the justifying your behavior by comparing yourself to Saints.

where the heck did I ever compare myself to the Saints?

All I said, is that if he considers me to be arrogant, then so be it, I don't care. I then asked him if he would consider our Saints arrogant because they talk about a form of prayer being "lesser" than the others. Which is somewhat similar to what I was saying about worship.

That doesn't mean I was comparing myself to the Saints. I was comparing worship to prayer, and asking if he would also consider our Saints to be arrogant.

Just for the record, I do not consider any saint to be arrogant.  And it wasn't I who brought the saints into the discussion.

Obviously I'm not the only one who thought you were comparing yourself to the saints.  

What you were saying about Catholic worship bore no relationship to what saints said about different levels of prayer.  It is incredibly disingenuous to invoke the saints while bashing another's faith and worship.

Yeah,  that was the approach of Elijah with the prophets of Baal.

[elijahmaria]

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

How so?

[ialmisry]

So out of curiosity, how should the Orthodox understand the NO mass in the context of a hopeful reunification (several thousand years in the making )? The liturgical abuses notwithstanding, how are we to understand a properly performed NO mass from a liturgical standpoint? Is there anything which would be considered truly deficient?

I'm not really sure I can answer that for you.  As I said to the OP, if you're really interested there's plenty of material out there for you to study and learn from about it, including the 2 books I posted links for.  I believe that a proper knowledge and understanding of the N.O. Mass would reveal that there is nothing "truly deficient", although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.

What I have to say about reunification is of no consequence and carries no weight.  That understood, part of my personal vision of it is that the liturgical rites and liturgies currently used in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would be mutually accepted by both.  That is, whichever liturgy/rite is currently used by any particular church will be allowed to be continued to be used, and no one's liturgy/rite will be imposed upon another.  Whether that would be acceptable or would happen, only God knows.

As an example of what I mean by "deficient," I think that Western Rite Orthodox Churches insert an explicit epiklesis into the Tridentine mass because it only has an implicit epiklesis. It is my understanding, however, that an explicit epiklesis, modeled on the one by St. Basil the Great, was added into the NO mass, so that should no longer be an issue.

How silly is this complaint.  The Epiklesis is, itself, an innovation.

In the earliest eastern Byzantine liturgy, what is now called the epiklesis, were once called the bidding prayers and were used at the beginning of the liturgy to welcome the gifts [bread and wine] as they were brought into the cathedral.

The long view makes the whole discussion of "mine is better than yours" look silly.

M.

With that I have no argument whatsoever  !

Thanks, too, for that piece of misinformation on the epiklesis!

fixed that for you.  

Fitting right back in I see.

[ialmisry]

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

How so?

[Aindriú]

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

Yes/agreed.

[Agabus]

Eastern Orthodoxy: Our Liturgical Reforms are Older than Yours.

Eastern Orthodoxy: Our Unchanged Liturgy Caused Schism Before Yours Changed. Or Something. I was never good at this one-upmanship thing.

[akimori makoto]

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

How so?

Yeah, that.

... (noting that a reverently-celebrated novus ordo mass does not look anything like that) ...

[88Devin12]

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

How so?

Yeah, that.

... (noting that a reverently-celebrated novus ordo mass does not look anything like that) ...

But notice that such behavior would be disciplined in the Church... (and rightly so!)

And Agabus, it didn't cause schism. Just because a group splits off doesn't mean jack.
The Church cannot, does not, and never has caused a schism. It is impossible. Only the evil one, who leads sheep astray causes some to leave the church. Even then, the Church is never, and cannot ever be divided.

[Shlomlokh]

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

Why not run down to your local Mormon ward and let us know? 

In Christ,
Andrew

[IsmiLiora]

I just have to say, I attended Novus Ordo services my entire life (my immigrant Filipino family was not about to go to the Latin Mass) and I have NEVER seen anything like that. At all. And I've seen those clown, mask photos five million times. Surely there are many MORE examples, if it's so prevalent throughout Roman Catholicism?

I love how people get enraged about the Mass. I was an altar server for years, attended churches throughout the country and in different parts of the world (some current Catholics can attest to this) but I never saw anything that crazy. Some churches were more liberal than others, which wasn't good, but I wasn't aware of clown masses going on at RCCs all over the U.S.  

[akimori makoto]

But notice that such behavior would be disciplined in the Church... (and rightly so!)

Are you saying the Church of Christ would be immune from persisting in such error? I suppose you could argue, from there, that the Western confessions are not the Church of Christ.

[Agabus]

And Agabus, it didn't cause schism. Just because a group splits off doesn't mean jack.

You do know the definition of schism, right? Because that's what the Nikonian reforms resulted in.

The Church cannot, does not, and never has caused a schism. It is impossible. Only the evil one, who leads sheep astray causes some to leave the church. Even then, the Church is never, and cannot ever be divided.

This is not what I said.

[stanley123]

And orthonorm, im sorry, but I guess you just don't understand that the Orthodox Church cannot, will not, and has not changed to match the "times" and the shoes of other faiths... Our worship will always and forever remain the same, and our faith and teachings will always remain the same.

Actually, I think that some of the teachings of the Orthodox Church have changed. For example, for 1900 years it was taught that women are to wear headcovering in Church, especially during DL.  But the teaching has changed and women are no longer required to wear headcovering in an Orthodox Church in the USA. I went to a DL in the USA, and I did not see one lady with a headcovering.

[88Devin12]

And Agabus, it didn't cause schism. Just because a group splits off doesn't mean jack.

You do know the definition of schism, right? Because that's what the Nikonian reforms resulted in.

The Church cannot, does not, and never has caused a schism. It is impossible. Only the evil one, who leads sheep astray causes some to leave the church. Even then, the Church is never, and cannot ever be divided.

This is not what I said.

My point is that the Liturgy, and the Church cannot cause schism. Only the evil one can, and he only influences the sheep to split themselves off, he can never divide the Church itself. Schism is simply a group of people falling away.

[stanley123]

LOL Protestant hymns?

I swear the RCC is a complete mess.

This was the first hymn...
http://youtu.be/ivesRYcIPsQ

I didn't know the others...

Now, like with Amazing Grace, I love that hymn. But it just isn't appropriate for Liturgical Worship.

Well, I guess that R. Catholics today like using modern song in their worship:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oASYa-Wkroc

[88Devin12]

But notice that such behavior would be disciplined in the Church... (and rightly so!)

Are you saying the Church of Christ would be immune from persisting in such error? I suppose you could argue, from there, that the Western confessions are not the Church of Christ.

Most certainly! It would not persist in such an error. It is the unblemished bride of Christ. It is protected and guided by the Holy Spirit. Some in the Church might abuse something, but they immediately cut themselves off from the Church and hopefully would be swiftly disciplined for their actions.

And of course, I would also argue that the Western confessions aren't in the Church and haven't been for almost 1000 years.

[stanley123]

Also, Vatican II didn't call for these changes. It was the clergy who responded to the council. The council fathers didn't want anything like what you saw.

But Rome let it happen.

[Agabus]

And Agabus, it didn't cause schism. Just because a group splits off doesn't mean jack.

You do know the definition of schism, right? Because that's what the Nikonian reforms resulted in.

The Church cannot, does not, and never has caused a schism. It is impossible. Only the evil one, who leads sheep astray causes some to leave the church. Even then, the Church is never, and cannot ever be divided.

This is not what I said.

My point is that the Liturgy, and the Church cannot cause schism. Only the evil one can, and he only influences the sheep to split themselves off, he can never divide the Church itself. Schism is simply a group of people falling away.

Ever heard the phrase "Too heavenly minded to be any Earthly good?" (Alternately, I've heard it said, "...Any damn good.")

The Nikonian reforms, which history has proven were actually on the wrong side of history, were the impetus for the Old Believer schism. Changes. To. The. Liturgy. Resulted. In. Schism.

Maybe the Devil made them do it. But they wouldn't have done it if the changes hadn't been made.

[88Devin12]

And orthonorm, im sorry, but I guess you just don't understand that the Orthodox Church cannot, will not, and has not changed to match the "times" and the shoes of other faiths... Our worship will always and forever remain the same, and our faith and teachings will always remain the same.

Actually, I think that some of the teachings of the Orthodox Church have changed. For example, for 1900 years it was taught that women are to wear headcovering in Church, especially during DL.  But the teaching has changed and women are no longer required to wear headcovering in an Orthodox Church in the USA. I went to a DL in the USA, and I did not see one lady with a headcovering.

Its still taught, it was never compulsory.

Also, there is a difference between a tradition and Tradition. Small t traditions do change, but the big T traditions cannot ever change. There might be slight variations in the Liturgies, but I think if you'd look at the Liturgy of St. James, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, as well as the pre-schism Western Rites, that you would find they were remarkably similar and reverent, and none of them looked anything like the Novus Ordo, or any Protestant style of worship.

[Deacon Lance]

So out of curiosity, how should the Orthodox understand the NO mass in the context of a hopeful reunification (several thousand years in the making )? The liturgical abuses notwithstanding, how are we to understand a properly performed NO mass from a liturgical standpoint? Is there anything which would be considered truly deficient?

I'm not really sure I can answer that for you.  As I said to the OP, if you're really interested there's plenty of material out there for you to study and learn from about it, including the 2 books I posted links for.  I believe that a proper knowledge and understanding of the N.O. Mass would reveal that there is nothing "truly deficient", although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.

What I have to say about reunification is of no consequence and carries no weight.  That understood, part of my personal vision of it is that the liturgical rites and liturgies currently used in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would be mutually accepted by both.  That is, whichever liturgy/rite is currently used by any particular church will be allowed to be continued to be used, and no one's liturgy/rite will be imposed upon another.  Whether that would be acceptable or would happen, only God knows.

As an example of what I mean by "deficient," I think that Western Rite Orthodox Churches insert an explicit epiklesis into the Tridentine mass because it only has an implicit epiklesis. It is my understanding, however, that an explicit epiklesis, modeled on the one by St. Basil the Great, was added into the NO mass, so that should no longer be an issue.

How silly is this complaint.  The Epiklesis is, itself, an innovation.

In the earliest eastern Byzantine liturgy, what is now called the epiklesis, were once called the bidding prayers and were used at the beginning of the liturgy to welcome the gifts [bread and wine] as they were brought into the cathedral.

The long view makes the whole discussion of "mine is better than yours" look silly.

M.

Can you provide the source for that.  I have never heard the Epiklesis termed an innovation.  It is found in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitution and the Canon of St Hippolytus both circa 4th century.

[88Devin12]

And Agabus, it didn't cause schism. Just because a group splits off doesn't mean jack.

You do know the definition of schism, right? Because that's what the Nikonian reforms resulted in.

The Church cannot, does not, and never has caused a schism. It is impossible. Only the evil one, who leads sheep astray causes some to leave the church. Even then, the Church is never, and cannot ever be divided.

This is not what I said.

My point is that the Liturgy, and the Church cannot cause schism. Only the evil one can, and he only influences the sheep to split themselves off, he can never divide the Church itself. Schism is simply a group of people falling away.

Ever heard the phrase "Too heavenly minded to be any Earthly good?" (Alternately, I've heard it said, "...Any damn good.")

The Nikonian reforms, which history has proven were actually on the wrong side of history, were the impetus for the Old Believer schism. Changes. To. The. Liturgy. Resulted. In. Schism.

Maybe the Devil made them do it. But they wouldn't have done it if the changes hadn't been made.

No, Satan misled the Old Believers into schism. That is my point. There is no way you can argue otherwise. Sure, Patriarch Nikon and others may have made mistakes, but that was no excuse for the Old Believers to enter into permanent schism with all of Orthodoxy. This goes the same for the Old Calendarists too.

The Church is pure and without blemish. Men might do evil as members, but they can't ever harm the Church, and neither does that mean the Church can be slandered.

[orthonorm]

No, Satan misled the Old Believers into schism. That is my point. There is no way you can argue otherwise. Sure, Patriarch Nikon and others may have made mistakes, but that was no excuse for the Old Believers to enter into permanent schism with all of Orthodoxy. This goes the same for the Old Calendarists too.

What are you trying to do here? I mean really?

[88Devin12]

No, Satan misled the Old Believers into schism. That is my point. There is no way you can argue otherwise. Sure, Patriarch Nikon and others may have made mistakes, but that was no excuse for the Old Believers to enter into permanent schism with all of Orthodoxy. This goes the same for the Old Calendarists too.

What are you trying to do here? I mean really?

I'm trying to honestly answer questions. What, do you expect me to be PC and submissive when referring to other confessions?

(again, this doesn't mean I hate non-Orthodox, but I do call em like I see em)

[Agabus]

No, Satan misled the Old Believers into schism. That is my point. There is no way you can argue otherwise. Sure, Patriarch Nikon and others may have made mistakes, but that was no excuse for the Old Believers to enter into permanent schism with all of Orthodoxy. This goes the same for the Old Calendarists too.

What are you trying to do here? I mean really?

Ride a theological high horse while ignoring the facts on the ground.

The funny thing about Orthodox history is that it is not the pristine timeline that's hanging in your parish hall. It's messy and sometimes it is only hindsight that helps the Church differentiate who is a St. Athanasius and who is an Old Believer (or whatever your heresy/schism may be). Or, since Devin88 is not afraid to offend sensibilities, the difference between the EO and the non-Chalcedonians.

[orthonorm]

No, Satan misled the Old Believers into schism. That is my point. There is no way you can argue otherwise. Sure, Patriarch Nikon and others may have made mistakes, but that was no excuse for the Old Believers to enter into permanent schism with all of Orthodoxy. This goes the same for the Old Calendarists too.

What are you trying to do here? I mean really?

Ride a theological high horse while ignoring the facts on the ground.

The funny thing about Orthodox history is that it is not the pristine timeline that's hanging in your parish hall. It's messy and sometimes it is only hindsight that helps the Church differentiate who is a St. Athanasius and who is an Old Believer (or whatever your heresy/schism may be). Or, since Devin88 is not afraid to offend sensibilities, the difference between the EO and the non-Chalcedonians.

Nice whatever you call that writing under your screen name.

[Agabus]

No, Satan misled the Old Believers into schism. That is my point. There is no way you can argue otherwise. Sure, Patriarch Nikon and others may have made mistakes, but that was no excuse for the Old Believers to enter into permanent schism with all of Orthodoxy. This goes the same for the Old Calendarists too.

What are you trying to do here? I mean really?

Ride a theological high horse while ignoring the facts on the ground.

The funny thing about Orthodox history is that it is not the pristine timeline that's hanging in your parish hall. It's messy and sometimes it is only hindsight that helps the Church differentiate who is a St. Athanasius and who is an Old Believer (or whatever your heresy/schism may be). Or, since Devin88 is not afraid to offend sensibilities, the difference between the EO and the non-Chalcedonians.

Nice whatever you call that writing under your screen name.

Stating the obvious?

[stanley123]

Its still taught,...

I don't see how you can seriously say that it is still taught that woman are to wear headcovering in Church, when every woman in the local (USA) Orthodox Church attends DL without headcovering.

[augustin717]

Its still taught,...

I don't see how you can seriously say that it is still taught that woman are to wear headcovering in Church, when every woman in the local (USA) Orthodox Church attends DL without headcovering.

But he's on an extended trip in 19th century Russia or such.

[Maria]

I grew up in an RC parish in the 80s (I'm 36).  I went to Catholic school from 1st through 6th grade and continued with CCD until I graduated high school.  I was an altar server (best one my parish ever had!) until I was in 9th grade.  I saw all the liturgical abuses that were common during that era.  I also saw a properly executed NO Mass, in Latin and in English.

The masses the OP is talking about are still the worst examples of the NO.  It doesn't matter how prevalent they are.  The priests who perform these liturgical abuses are in the wrong, period.  They are misusing the freedom the Vatican gave them in the 1969 missal.  The simple fact remains is that one cannot judge the NO until one sees the fruits of a properly celebrated Ordinary form Mass and how such a liturgical experience fostered (and continues to foster) the faith of those who take their "churching" seriously...and even those who don't.

The problem is not the NO, but the people who celebrate it in a poor manner.

There is a serious problem wiith the NO as it is based on the 1904 Lutheran Liturgy or similar Lutheran liturgy.

I had a copy of the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal and I carefully compared it to the NO. The words were almost the same except that the Lutheran Liturgy used thee, thou, and thine, and a few other expressions from that time frame (1904).
When I showed it to my Catholic Confessor (at that time), he tore up the Lutheran Hymnal and tossed it in the trash.
Then he never celebrated a NO again. From then on, the only liturgy he celebrated was the Traditional Latin Mass or the Byzantine Liturgy as he was biritual.

[stanley123]

I grew up in an RC parish in the 80s (I'm 36).  I went to Catholic school from 1st through 6th grade and continued with CCD until I graduated high school.  I was an altar server (best one my parish ever had!) until I was in 9th grade.  I saw all the liturgical abuses that were common during that era.  I also saw a properly executed NO Mass, in Latin and in English.

The masses the OP is talking about are still the worst examples of the NO.  It doesn't matter how prevalent they are.  The priests who perform these liturgical abuses are in the wrong, period.  They are misusing the freedom the Vatican gave them in the 1969 missal.  The simple fact remains is that one cannot judge the NO until one sees the fruits of a properly celebrated Ordinary form Mass and how such a liturgical experience fostered (and continues to foster) the faith of those who take their "churching" seriously...and even those who don't.

The problem is not the NO, but the people who celebrate it in a poor manner.

There is a serious problem wiith the NO as it is based on the 1904 Lutheran Liturgy.

I had a copy of the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal and I carefully compared it to the NO.
When I showed my Catholic Confessor (at that time), he tore up the Lutheran Hymnal and tossed it in the trash.
Then he never celebrated a NO again. From then on, the only liturgy he celebrated was the Traditional Latin Mass or the Byzantine Liturgy as he was biritual.

Is there a copy of this Lutheran liturgy online?

[Maria]

I grew up in an RC parish in the 80s (I'm 36).  I went to Catholic school from 1st through 6th grade and continued with CCD until I graduated high school.  I was an altar server (best one my parish ever had!) until I was in 9th grade.  I saw all the liturgical abuses that were common during that era.  I also saw a properly executed NO Mass, in Latin and in English.

The masses the OP is talking about are still the worst examples of the NO.  It doesn't matter how prevalent they are.  The priests who perform these liturgical abuses are in the wrong, period.  They are misusing the freedom the Vatican gave them in the 1969 missal.  The simple fact remains is that one cannot judge the NO until one sees the fruits of a properly celebrated Ordinary form Mass and how such a liturgical experience fostered (and continues to foster) the faith of those who take their "churching" seriously...and even those who don't.

The problem is not the NO, but the people who celebrate it in a poor manner.

There is a serious problem wiith the NO as it is based on the 1904 Lutheran Liturgy.

I had a copy of the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal and I carefully compared it to the NO.
When I showed my Catholic Confessor (at that time), he tore up the Lutheran Hymnal and tossed it in the trash.
Then he never celebrated a NO again. From then on, the only liturgy he celebrated was the Traditional Latin Mass or the Byzantine Liturgy as he was biritual.

Is there a copy of this Lutheran liturgy online?

I wish. I tried to find another copy, but there are few and they are very expensive.
I would bet that even a current Lutheran Liturgy is very close to the NO as that is its origin.

Several historians, and I forgot the Catholic references, said that 6 Lutheran pastors developed the NO for Pope Paul VI.

[88Devin12]

Its still taught,...

I don't see how you can seriously say that it is still taught that woman are to wear headcovering in Church, when every woman in the local (USA) Orthodox Church attends DL without headcovering.

Every? Obviously you haven't seen many OCA parishes.

As for headcoverings at church in general, have you seen Eastern Europe? (especially Russia)

[orthonorm]

Its still taught,...

I don't see how you can seriously say that it is still taught that woman are to wear headcovering in Church, when every woman in the local (USA) Orthodox Church attends DL without headcovering.

Every? Obviously you haven't seen many OCA parishes.

As for headcoverings at church in general, have you seen Eastern Europe? (especially Russia)

Another tourist.

And?

[stanley123]

Its still taught,...

I don't see how you can seriously say that it is still taught that woman are to wear headcovering in Church, when every woman in the local (USA) Orthodox Church attends DL without headcovering.

Every? Obviously you haven't seen many OCA parishes.

As for headcoverings at church in general, have you seen Eastern Europe? (especially Russia)

I was speaking of a local Orthodox Church here in the USA. BTW, they were also using an electronic piano (sounds similar to an organ) during the singing. I asked about it after the liturgy, and the wife of the priest told me that she used it so that people would be singing on key. I mentioned that I had read that any form of musical instrumentation, except for bells, was forbidden to be used during the DL.  However, when I attended the following week, I noticed that they stopped using the electronic piano (an organ?), but the women still were not wearing headcovering. (This includes the wife of the priest).

[Maria]

Its still taught,...

I don't see how you can seriously say that it is still taught that woman are to wear headcovering in Church, when every woman in the local (USA) Orthodox Church attends DL without headcovering.

Every? Obviously you haven't seen many OCA parishes.

As for headcoverings at church in general, have you seen Eastern Europe? (especially Russia)

In my local Orthodox parish, a few women DO cover their heads.

Hey, Devin, have you heard the comment made that 6 Lutheran Pastors helped to develop the NO?

See this post:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38817.msg622468.html#msg622468

BTW: Here is the only reference that I found to the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904
http://germanamericanlutherans.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-lutheran-hymnals.html
I guess one could order a search at bookstore that specializes in rare used books.
It would not be cheap.

[Cavaradossi]

Its still taught,...

I don't see how you can seriously say that it is still taught that woman are to wear headcovering in Church, when every woman in the local (USA) Orthodox Church attends DL without headcovering.

Every? Obviously you haven't seen many OCA parishes.

As for headcoverings at church in general, have you seen Eastern Europe? (especially Russia)

I was speaking of a local Orthodox Church here in the USA. BTW, they were also using an electronic piano (sounds similar to an organ) during the singing. I asked about it after the liturgy, and the wife of the priest told me that she used it so that people would be singing on key. I mentioned that I had read that any form of musical instrumentation, except for bells, was forbidden to be used during the DL.  However, when I attended the following week, I noticed that they stopped using the electronic piano (an organ?), but the women still were not wearing headcovering. (This includes the wife of the priest).

Holy, Holy, Holy art Thou! Where may I find your ikon?

[stanley123]

Its still taught,...

I don't see how you can seriously say that it is still taught that woman are to wear headcovering in Church, when every woman in the local (USA) Orthodox Church attends DL without headcovering.

Every? Obviously you haven't seen many OCA parishes.

As for headcoverings at church in general, have you seen Eastern Europe? (especially Russia)

I was speaking of a local Orthodox Church here in the USA. BTW, they were also using an electronic piano (sounds similar to an organ) during the singing. I asked about it after the liturgy, and the wife of the priest told me that she used it so that people would be singing on key. I mentioned that I had read that any form of musical instrumentation, except for bells, was forbidden to be used during the DL.  However, when I attended the following week, I noticed that they stopped using the electronic piano (an organ?), but the women still were not wearing headcovering. (This includes the wife of the priest).

Holy, Holy, Holy art Thou! Where may I find your ikon?

No. Not at all. I am only interested in the assertion that there have been no changes in Orthodox teaching, and that there never will be any. I don;t see how someone could expect me to take that assertion seriously  if  it was taught for 1900 years that women are to wear headcovering in Church and it is not taught that now at least in some  of the Churches in the USA. Also, I see on occasion  Orthodox clergy praying with Catholic clergy, so apparently there has been a change in the teaching forbidding that also.

[Maria]

I grew up in an RC parish in the 80s (I'm 36).  I went to Catholic school from 1st through 6th grade and continued with CCD until I graduated high school.  I was an altar server (best one my parish ever had!) until I was in 9th grade.  I saw all the liturgical abuses that were common during that era.  I also saw a properly executed NO Mass, in Latin and in English.

The masses the OP is talking about are still the worst examples of the NO.  It doesn't matter how prevalent they are.  The priests who perform these liturgical abuses are in the wrong, period.  They are misusing the freedom the Vatican gave them in the 1969 missal.  The simple fact remains is that one cannot judge the NO until one sees the fruits of a properly celebrated Ordinary form Mass and how such a liturgical experience fostered (and continues to foster) the faith of those who take their "churching" seriously...and even those who don't.

The problem is not the NO, but the people who celebrate it in a poor manner.

There is a serious problem wiith the NO as it is based on the 1904 Lutheran Liturgy.

I had a copy of the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal and I carefully compared it to the NO.
When I showed my Catholic Confessor (at that time), he tore up the Lutheran Hymnal and tossed it in the trash.
Then he never celebrated a NO again. From then on, the only liturgy he celebrated was the Traditional Latin Mass or the Byzantine Liturgy as he was biritual.

Is there a copy of this Lutheran liturgy online?

I wish. I tried to find another copy, but there are few and they are very expensive.
I would bet that even a current Lutheran Liturgy is very close to the NO as that is its origin.

Several historians, and I forgot the Catholic references, said that 6 Lutheran pastors developed the NO for Pope Paul VI.

I just did a Google search, and found this interesting article concerning the Lutheran origins of the Novus Ordo.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Luthers-Mass.htm

[stanley123]

I grew up in an RC parish in the 80s (I'm 36).  I went to Catholic school from 1st through 6th grade and continued with CCD until I graduated high school.  I was an altar server (best one my parish ever had!) until I was in 9th grade.  I saw all the liturgical abuses that were common during that era.  I also saw a properly executed NO Mass, in Latin and in English.

The masses the OP is talking about are still the worst examples of the NO.  It doesn't matter how prevalent they are.  The priests who perform these liturgical abuses are in the wrong, period.  They are misusing the freedom the Vatican gave them in the 1969 missal.  The simple fact remains is that one cannot judge the NO until one sees the fruits of a properly celebrated Ordinary form Mass and how such a liturgical experience fostered (and continues to foster) the faith of those who take their "churching" seriously...and even those who don't.

The problem is not the NO, but the people who celebrate it in a poor manner.

There is a serious problem wiith the NO as it is based on the 1904 Lutheran Liturgy.

I had a copy of the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal and I carefully compared it to the NO.
When I showed my Catholic Confessor (at that time), he tore up the Lutheran Hymnal and tossed it in the trash.
Then he never celebrated a NO again. From then on, the only liturgy he celebrated was the Traditional Latin Mass or the Byzantine Liturgy as he was biritual.

Is there a copy of this Lutheran liturgy online?

I wish. I tried to find another copy, but there are few and they are very expensive.
I would bet that even a current Lutheran Liturgy is very close to the NO as that is its origin.

Several historians, and I forgot the Catholic references, said that 6 Lutheran pastors developed the NO for Pope Paul VI.

I just did a Google search, and found this interesting article concerning the Lutheran origins of the Novus Ordo.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Luthers-Mass.htm

Right. Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX society insist on the Traditional Latin (Tridentine ) Mass. Has anyone mentioned yet that in November of this year, the Roman Catholic Church will introduce (at least in the USA) a reformed version of the New Mass, which is supposed to be more conservative and tradtional than the present NO Mass? I suppose though, that there will still be the Protestant type hymnnals being sung.

[Volnutt]

Its still taught,...

I don't see how you can seriously say that it is still taught that woman are to wear headcovering in Church, when every woman in the local (USA) Orthodox Church attends DL without headcovering.

Every? Obviously you haven't seen many OCA parishes.

As for headcoverings at church in general, have you seen Eastern Europe? (especially Russia)

I was speaking of a local Orthodox Church here in the USA. BTW, they were also using an electronic piano (sounds similar to an organ) during the singing. I asked about it after the liturgy, and the wife of the priest told me that she used it so that people would be singing on key. I mentioned that I had read that any form of musical instrumentation, except for bells, was forbidden to be used during the DL.  However, when I attended the following week, I noticed that they stopped using the electronic piano (an organ?), but the women still were not wearing headcovering. (This includes the wife of the priest).

Holy, Holy, Holy art Thou! Where may I find your ikon?

No. Not at all. I am only interested in the assertion that there have been no changes in Orthodox teaching, and that there never will be any. I don;t see how someone could expect me to take that assertion seriously  if  it was taught for 1900 years that women are to wear headcovering in Church and it is not taught that now at least in some  of the Churches in the USA. Also, I see on occasion  Orthodox clergy praying with Catholic clergy, so apparently there has been a change in the teaching forbidding that also.

This is just my point in my thread. Are head coverings part of the changelessness claim, are they shall we say, "core doctrines?"

If so, Orthodoxy truly is a farce.

[Volnutt]

How so?

[/quote]Btw, what's wrong with the third one where they're all holding hands?

[TheMathematician]

I grew up in an RC parish in the 80s (I'm 36).  I went to Catholic school from 1st through 6th grade and continued with CCD until I graduated high school.  I was an altar server (best one my parish ever had!) until I was in 9th grade.  I saw all the liturgical abuses that were common during that era.  I also saw a properly executed NO Mass, in Latin and in English.

The masses the OP is talking about are still the worst examples of the NO.  It doesn't matter how prevalent they are.  The priests who perform these liturgical abuses are in the wrong, period.  They are misusing the freedom the Vatican gave them in the 1969 missal.  The simple fact remains is that one cannot judge the NO until one sees the fruits of a properly celebrated Ordinary form Mass and how such a liturgical experience fostered (and continues to foster) the faith of those who take their "churching" seriously...and even those who don't.

The problem is not the NO, but the people who celebrate it in a poor manner.

There is a serious problem wiith the NO as it is based on the 1904 Lutheran Liturgy.

I had a copy of the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal and I carefully compared it to the NO.
When I showed my Catholic Confessor (at that time), he tore up the Lutheran Hymnal and tossed it in the trash.
Then he never celebrated a NO again. From then on, the only liturgy he celebrated was the Traditional Latin Mass or the Byzantine Liturgy as he was biritual.

Is there a copy of this Lutheran liturgy online?

I wish. I tried to find another copy, but there are few and they are very expensive.
I would bet that even a current Lutheran Liturgy is very close to the NO as that is its origin.

Several historians, and I forgot the Catholic references, said that 6 Lutheran pastors developed the NO for Pope Paul VI.

I just did a Google search, and found this interesting article concerning the Lutheran origins of the Novus Ordo.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Luthers-Mass.htm

Right. Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX society insist on the Traditional Latin (Tridentine ) Mass. Has anyone mentioned yet that in November of this year, the Roman Catholic Church will introduce (at least in the USA) a reformed version of the New Mass, which is supposed to be more conservative and tradtional than the present NO Mass? I suppose though, that there will still be the Protestant type hymnnals being sung.

its not really a reformed missal, as just being retranslated

[Cavaradossi]

Its still taught,...

I don't see how you can seriously say that it is still taught that woman are to wear headcovering in Church, when every woman in the local (USA) Orthodox Church attends DL without headcovering.

Every? Obviously you haven't seen many OCA parishes.

As for headcoverings at church in general, have you seen Eastern Europe? (especially Russia)

I was speaking of a local Orthodox Church here in the USA. BTW, they were also using an electronic piano (sounds similar to an organ) during the singing. I asked about it after the liturgy, and the wife of the priest told me that she used it so that people would be singing on key. I mentioned that I had read that any form of musical instrumentation, except for bells, was forbidden to be used during the DL.  However, when I attended the following week, I noticed that they stopped using the electronic piano (an organ?), but the women still were not wearing headcovering. (This includes the wife of the priest).

Holy, Holy, Holy art Thou! Where may I find your ikon?

No. Not at all. I am only interested in the assertion that there have been no changes in Orthodox teaching, and that there never will be any. I don;t see how someone could expect me to take that assertion seriously  if  it was taught for 1900 years that women are to wear headcovering in Church and it is not taught that now at least in some  of the Churches in the USA. Also, I see on occasion  Orthodox clergy praying with Catholic clergy, so apparently there has been a change in the teaching forbidding that also.

This is just my point in my thread. Are head coverings part of the changelessness claim, are they shall we say, "core doctrines?"

If so, Orthodoxy truly is a farce.

Well, the Orthodox who do not advocate sticking strictly to the canons would say that canons are matters of practice, not doctrine, so covering one's hair is not some sort of infallible doctrine. Canons lose their meaningfulness when the meanings of the things they regulate change. In the case of the covering of hair, we have to ask what it was that made the Fathers feel that hair should be covered, and whether or not that perception about hair still exists. I for one don't think that people should violate the canons as a matter of economy (no matter how out of date the canons are) until we have a chance to review them and update them for the modern era, but I suppose that some bishops have a more liberal outlook than that. Still, so long as I don't see any clown or puppet masses, I won't complain about some women having their hair uncovered in Church.

[stanley123]

How so?

Btw, what's wrong with the third one where they're all holding hands?
[/quote]My guess is that the second one is not Catholic, but a Protestant Episcopalian service. At least there has been posted similar to this, on youtube, and it was Episcopalian. But if there is a reference to the Church and service in the picture, then we would know for sure.